Tuesday, January 10, 2012

The Disbanding of Troops - by Frederick Bastiat

II. The Disbanding of Troops.

It is the same with a people as it is with a man.
If it wishes to give itself some gratification, it naturally considers
whether it is worth what it costs. To a nation, security is the greatest
of advantages. If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to have an -army
of a hundred thousand men, I have nothing to say against it. It is an enjoyment
bought by a sacrifice. Let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my
position. A member of the assembly proposes to disband a hundred thousand
men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of a hundred millions.
If we confine ourselves to this answer -“The hundred millions of
men, and these hundred millions of money, are indispensable to the national
security: it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be
torn by factions, or invaded by some foreign power,” -I have nothing
to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which
theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy. The error
begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it
profits somebody.
Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal
has taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say -“Disband a
hundred thousand men! do you know what you are saying? What will become
of them? Where will they get a living? Don't you know that work is scarce
everywhere? That every field is overstocked? Would you turn them out of
doors to increase competition, and weigh upon the rate of wages? Just now,
when it is a hard matter to live at all, it would be a pretty thing if
the State must find bread for a hundred thousand individuals? Consider,
besides, that the army consumes wine, clothing, arms -that it promotes
the activity of manufactures in garrison townsthat it is, in short, the
god-send of innumerable purveyors. Why, any one must tremble at the bare
idea of doing away with this immense industrial movement.”
This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the maintenance of
a hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the
service, and from economical considerations. It is these considerations
only that I have to refute.
A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-payers a hundred millions of
money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred millions can
supply. This is that which is seen.
But, a hundred millions taken from the pockets of the tax-payers, cease
to maintain these taxpayers and the purveyors, as far as a hundred minions
reach. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Cast
up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?
I will tell you where the loss lies; and to simplify it, instead of
speaking of a hundred thousand men and a million of money, it shall be
of one man, and a thousand francs.
We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting sergeants
go their round, and take off a man. The tax-gatherers go their round, and
take off a thousand francs. The man and the sum of money are taken to Metz,
and the latter is destined to support the former for a year without doing
anything. If you consider Metz only, you are quite right; the measure is
a very advantageous one: but if you look towards the village of A., you
will judge very differently; for, unless you are very blind indeed, you
will see that that village has lost a worker, and the thousand francs which
would remunerate his labour, as well as the activity which, by the expenditure
of those thousand francs, it would spread around it.
At first sight, there would seem to be some compensation. What took
place at the village, now takes place at Metz, that is all. But the loss
is to be estimated in this way: -At the village, a man dug and worked;
he was a worker. At Metz, he turns to the right about, and to the left
about; he is a soldier. The money and the circulation are the same in both
cases; but in the one there were three hundred days of productive labour;
in the other, there are three hundred days of unproductive labour, supposing,
of course, that a part of the army is not indispensable to the public safety.
Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. You tell me there will be
a surplus of a hundred thousand workers, that competition will be stimulated,
and it will reduce the rate of wages. This is what you see.
But what you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss a hundred
thousand soldiers is not to do away with a million of money, but to return
it to the tax-payers. You do not see that to throw a hundred thousand workers
on the market, is to throw into it, at the same moment, the hundred millions
of money needed to pay for their labour; that, consequently, the same act
which increases the supply of hands, increases also the demand; from which
it follows, that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded. You do
not see that, before the disbanding as well as after it, there are in the
country a hundred millions of money corresponding with the hundred thousand
men. That the whole difference consists in this: before the disbanding,
the country gave the hundred millions to the hundred thousand men for doing
nothing; and that after it, it pays them the same sum for working. You
do not see, in short, that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a
soldier in exchange for nothing, or to a worker in exchange for something,
all the ultimate consequences of the circulation of this money are the
same in the two cases; only, in the second case, the tax-payer receives
something, in the former he receives nothing. The result is -a dead loss
to the nation.
The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of progression,
which is the touchstone of principles. If, when every compensation is made,
and all interests are-satisfied, there is a national profit in increasing
the army, why not enroll under its banners the entire male population of
the country?